Proposals for closing projects/Closure of Simple English Wikiquote

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

The result of the following proposal for closing a WMF project is to KEEP the project. Please, do not modify this page.

The following discussion is closed: Kept

Discussion finished, result is KEEP. There are many Simple English project currently. Quotes may be explained and translated to Simple English (as it's done on other simple projects). The problem is in Simple English as a language (you may start discussion on it, since it doesn't match our language policy and is an original research ), but there are no arguments against Simple English Wikiquote in particular — VasilievVV 16:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discussion finished, result is KEEP. --MF-W 09:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No reason has been given, so the result is invalid. -- Prince Kassad 10:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have closed this discussion and protected this page for one week. We have had an administrator (see above) close the discussion per the motion to close the discussion 1 May 2008. A non-administrator has stricken that comment (see above) as invalid. If you have comments, please direct them now to the talk page. --A. B. (talk) 14:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Correction: The discussion was closed by a non-admin, making his decision invalid. As an administrator, I am stopping this discussion pending a final decision based on the discussion to date. This discussion has dragged on for two years and there has been sentiment on both sides that it needs to end. The 1 May closure date proposed in late March seems as good a time as any. I can't see any more useful discussion or ideas beyond those expressed here and on the talk page.
I leave it for a more neutral administrator than myself to make the final decision since I have been very involved in this discussion.
As noted above, this page is protected. Please take any subsequent discussions to the talk page. --A. B. (talk) 15:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Motion to close 2[edit]

I ask on unanimous consent that this discussion will be close on May,1st 2008. If you have an objection - please, file it here--Dima io 22:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Motion to close[edit]

I ask on unanimous consent that this discussion will be close on May,1st 2008. If you have an objection - please, file it here--Dima io 22:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discussion is still open. --Coppertwig 16:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discussion is finished, no more votes will be accepted. Final result will be published after an analysis of the project and the arguments given on this page. -- Prince Kassad 21:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You, as non sysop, are not considered to declare such vote closure. Furthermore, it should be concluded "keep as no consensus" in my opinion.--Aphaia 09:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is not the English Wikipedia, there's no "no consensus". It's either keep or close. For the "not eligible" reason, read my comment on the talk page. -- Prince Kassad 10:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

:The final result is close. Unlike all the other projects in Simple English, this Wikiquote is not useful.

Most people who voted oppose said that they're not simplifying the quotes. However, that is not true, which can easily be confirmed by checking out any page on the Simple English Wikiquote. The problem with simplifying a quote is that it takes away the original meaning of the quote. However, the purpose of a quote is to carry this meaning, and unlike other languages, which have a sufficient vocabulary to at least get close to the original quote, this is not possible with Simple English because of the very limited vocabulary. In fact, the quote turns into something completely different. See q:simple:Douglas Adams for a very good example of what I mean.
Because Simple English is a non-notable artifical language, there are no Simple English quotes to collect either, which would have made this Wikiquote useful.
Some people also say that this Wikiquote's purpose is to explain the quotes. The problem with it is that it's 1. only done on a few pages, and 2. is not what Wikiquote is about. For that purpose, you can read the normal English Wikiquote and look up words you don't understand on the Simple English Wiktionary.
So, unless a very good argument turns up to keep this Wiki open, it will unfortunately have to be closed. I'll leave the community 2 days to answer (on the talk page... I can't believe I forgot to mention this), then anybody may file a request on Bugzilla. -- Prince Kassad 22:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC) This decision has been challenged, please read the talk page for details.Reply[reply]

I will close this discussion in 7 days, even if there are objections. This discussion has been going on for one and a half year, it needs to be stopped now or it will never end. -- Prince Kassad 19:17, 27 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Closure of Simple English Wikiquote[edit]

Quotes in English are quotes in English. -- Netoholic @ 21:34, 26 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please see Cromwellt's explanation of the project before voting, we are not simplifying the quotes themselves. I think many are voting without a proper understanding of the project's aim. Archer7 16:37, 15 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Quotes translated from English into Spanish are quotes translated from English into Spanish (e.g. Shakespeare on Spanish Wikiquote). Quotes translated from Greek into English are quotes translated from Greek into English (e.g. Artistotle on English Wikiquote). Quotes translated from English into Simple English are quotes translated from English into Simple English (accessible to some Deaf people, some people with learning disabilities, etc. -- people who do not read either English or any other language besides Simple English.) --Coppertwig 03:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
FYI, as of 20 May 2007, it appears Netoholic has not been made in edits on Simple, Meta, or en:wikipedia since late 2006 --A. B. (talk) 04:07, 20 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For your information, as of yet, Simple English Wikiquote has 50 articles. It is in a steady progress in my observation. --Aphaia 09:59, 28 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Motion to end discussion[edit]

I propose to close this discussion within 14 days from now. If having endless discussions without any meaningful outcome is something you enjoy, I won't stand in the way..--Johannes Rohr 20:53, 12 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is no body within the Wikimedia Foundation that would have both the authority and the political will to close a project which

  1. has content
  2. is actively maintained
  3. has an, albeit modest, growth rate.

Therefore I believe that this closure proposal can safely be discarded. --Johannes Rohr 14:27, 28 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Motion seconded (or only langcom members are invited?) --Aphaia 14:35, 29 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Aren't there more votes in favor of closing this project? If the will of the people is doomed to be ignored after all, why play this votes and democracy game? Elephas 20:34, 11 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See w:Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a democracy. Closing down an existing project would required a clear community consensus (as opposed to a simple majority). If you read this page, you can easily determine, that such a consensus does not exist - even though "Simple English", which is not a recognised linguistic entity would not be seen as fit for purpose under the language proposal policy if it was newly proposed today. Closing down an existing project is the most radical step possible for a Wiki. While there appears to be a consensus, that Wikis which have zero content and no community should be closed, the current informal "community managed" process cannot manage closure proposals based on reasons other than the aforementioned (no content, no community). Those users, including myself, who have come forward and tried to turn WM:PCP into a functioning process have no formalised authority at all. There is no body endowed with the necessary powers, apart from the Board of Trustees, which so far has declined to get involved into the handling of closure proposals. Therefore there are two alternatives: Leaving this proposal open indefinitely or declaring it closed and rejected. --Johannes Rohr 22:23, 11 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In this case the outcome of this vote is well predefined then, the Simple Englishians will keep their playground sure thing. You don't like Simple Englishepedia - don't contribute there and don't navigate either. Amen. :) Elephas 23:02, 11 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I believe that usually when someone closes a poll like this, they don't just count the number of votes but they look at the reasons people give with their votes and see whether they are good reasons and whether they are the right kind of reason for this kind of poll. On this page, many people who voted to support closing seem to have voted quickly without reading the whole page:
  • Many people supporting closing the Wikiquote say that when a quote is translated it is not the same quote. But when we ask whether we should delete all the quotes of Aristotle (translated into English) from the English Wikiquote, or whether we should delete all the quotes of Shakespeare (translated into Italian) from the Italian wikiquote, they never answer.
  • People supporting closing the Wikiquote say that people should read the quotes in their "own" language. But when we say that some people can read Simple English but cannot read any other language, they never answer.
  • People supporting closing the Wikiquote say that people learning English should read quotes by using an English-to-other-language dictionary. But when we say that some people who are learning a language don't like to read words in their own language when they're in the middle of a sentence in the language they're learning, they don't answer.
  • This comment "How can you make a quote simple? Thunderhead 21:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)" seems to have been written by someone who did not read the comment just above it, which says "... A passage translated into Simple English is not actually any simpler than the original passage. ...".
  • Elephas' vote seems to be about Simple English Wikipedia, not Simple English Wikiquote.
  • -✉Hello World! says "footnote is enough" but no one says that English Wikiquote has been asked if they will let us put Simple English footnotes on all quotes. No one says that English Wikipedia needs to be closed because it is enough to put footnotes in English at the bottom of all French Wikipedia articles, and no one gives a reason why footnotes are good enough instead of Simple English Wikiquote but not good enough instead of English Wikipedia. Also, footnotes are usually very small letters, which may be hard for someone learning to read or someone with a learning disability.
  • One person opposing closing the Wikiquote said "...Can see how it aids translators works quite excellently..." and no one supporting closing the Wikiquote has given any argument answering that.
Footnotes or dictionaries may be good enough for some people, but other people want to have a Simple English Wikiquote. --Coppertwig 13:09, 12 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also, in the time after Feb. 11 2007 when I changed the Main Page to make it easy to find the good pages, there were more votes opposed to closing (12 votes) than votes supporting closing (8 votes). --Coppertwig 16:10, 12 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support closing SE WQ[edit]

  1. Support -- Netoholic @ 21:34, 26 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. How can you get Simple English quotes? Computerjoe 10:50, 30 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3. Support per nom. Quotes are quotes - ie, not written in Simple English. --Celestianpower (en, wikt) 11:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Comment: please see my response below. We want to explain t/he quotes, not change them. --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 00:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  4. Support. —Nightstallion (?) 09:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  5. Support, English quotes are English quotes. --Pmsyyz 03:07, 8 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Comment: please see my response below. We want to explain the quotes, not change them. --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 00:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Comment: That can happen in the Wikiquote of the person's native language. If a person can't understand the quote in the English Wikiquote, they will usually be able to click on a interlanguage link and find the quote in their native tongue. Should there be a simple language version of every Wikiquote? --Pmsyyz 04:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Comment: You are missing the point. Many people wish to use English, but do not have a very large vocabulary or a very complete understanding. Perhaps they are learning English, since English is the most widely-taught foreign language on Earth. For all of those people who don't know English well, SE Wikiquote can be an invaluable resource. Additionally, many quotes are extremely idiomatic. Even people with a perfect knowledge of English may benefit from having an explanation of quotes. Yes, I think it would be perfectly fine to have simple projects of every language.
    Comment: You are missing the point. If someone doesn't understand English well enough to understand the English Wikiquote, then can use Wikiquote in their own language. If they are trying to learn English, the English Wikiquote would be best so that they can learn it properly. If they don't understand some words they can look them up in the Wikitionary of their choice. Simple versions of everything divides effort. --Pmsyyz 00:52, 27 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Comment: Your second sentence is not always true. Some people who can read Simple English, but who cannot read English well, do not have any other language they can read. This includes children; people learning to read; some deaf people; and others. Some Deaf people have great difficulty learning to read because they haven't heard a language and can't benefit from the use of the alphabet as others do; they're also reading words in a different order from their native language, usually a sign language which does not have a written equivalent. Some people may want to see explanations of English quotes but do not read any other language. This also includes people who know English well but don't understand a quote because it's in archaic English. One group who can benefit greatly from a Simple English Wikiquotes is people who do read another language, but are trying to learn English without the distraction of seeing words in their own language (in an English-to-other-language dictionary) while trying to learn English. They can benefit from studying real English quotes along with explanations in Simple English to help them rather than (or in addition to) an interlanguage dictionary. Re your last sentence: I wish to be free to decide where to spend my own effort and time -- I do not wish to be corralled into projects other people believe are more important. For an example of a Wikiquote page with real English quotes and explanations in Simple English of the quotes please see wikiquote:simple:William Shakespeare. --Coppertwig 23:36, 3 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Comment: Pmsyyz says people can use interwikis to their native tongue instead. But, some people can read Simple English and cannot read any other language. Also, I tried using interwikis in the Wikiquotes and it was no use. The other language Wikiquote gives quotes of the same poet or author, but they are usually different quotes or they are in a different order. I was not able to find the same quotes in more than one language, or if I did it took a long time -- except on Simple English Wikiquote, where the same quote is given in both English and Simple English on the same page. --Coppertwig 15:48, 12 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  6. Support Jon Harald Søby 22:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  7. Weak Support The Jade Knight 23:44, 11 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  8. Support, How to simplify a quotation? It's impossible. --Taichi - (あ!) 02:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Comment: please see my response below. We want to explain the quotes, not change them. We may also include a kind of "translation" into Simple English, just as all other Wikiquotes have them (per Aphaia). --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 22:12, 19 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  9. Support.Timichal • 15:47, 16. Jun 2006
    Support I don't understand it either. 11:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Comment: If you don't understand it, why not try to figure it out instead of voting to close? Allow me to try to explain (again): People who know little English often cannot understand famous quotes. SEWQ is made to be a place for the kind of explanation (or even "translation") that those people need. We have a specific audience, a specific intent, and a form of self-evaluation. We deserve to exist, or at least be given a chance. Oh, and please log in or create an account before voting. --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 05:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  10. Support I hate small Wikis! THEY MUST ALL DIE! --Node ue 00:49, 24 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Comment: Is this a serious vote? --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 16:06, 28 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  11. Support Simple English wikibooks have reason for life, wikipedia so-so, but wikiquote? It's just wasting of hard disk space and proc time. 10 pages, 33 users.... SpeedyGonsales 10:18, 30 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Comment: read my explanations, please. --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 16:06, 28 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  12. Support. Is there a Wikinews edition, too? :) --Millosh 15:04, 2 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Comment. Funny you should mention that: I personally feel like there should be. It would serve the same audience as all other SE projects: those who do not know English well. It would provide newsreporting in language that these people can understand, eventually, the reporting would be independent of EWikinews, but it could start by providing SE versions of their articles. Why not? --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 05:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  13. I hate Simple English. Pietras1988 08:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  14. Support in favour of the already-existing Standard English one. I wonder how on earth the version in question got created? --Slgrandson 18:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Comment. Why is an SEWP contributor like you against another SE project? We serve the same community, we just do it in another capacity, allowing that community to enjoy the benefits of WQ, just as SEWP does in an encyclopedic context. I beg you to reconsider or at least give us a chance. --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 05:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  15. Support. 百家姓之四 05:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  16. Strongest Support You cannot change an original quote and dumb it down. Pronoun 17:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Comment: Can you translate a quote or state it in other words? Can you explain a quote? Are there people whose knowledge of English is limited but wish to use it anyway? Are there people on Earth that are learning English? Since the answer to all of these is clearly yes, Simple English Wikiquote unquestionably has a reason to exist, since these are what it is all about. --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 16:06, 28 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  17. Strong Support closing - it's clearly nonsense --Antares 21:39, 12 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Comment: I strongly disagree. Check my explanations, such as the one above your vote. --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 16:06, 28 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  18. Support, LOL. What good is a "simple" quote? -- King of Hearts 00:23, 18 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Comment: Let's see...a way for people with limited vocabulary to understand the quote...a help for people learning the language...a clear explanation for those who know the language but do not themselves understand the quote.... Certainly there's at least some good. Give us a chance. --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 16:06, 28 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  19. Support --Davidlud 01:24, 18 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  20. Support per nom. I find it weird. --Tone 15:11, 6 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  21. Support per nom. Bogdan 13:26, 8 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  22. Per nom. MaxSem 09:28, 14 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  23. Support per nom. Edward Chernenko 12:53, 4 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  24. Support Dont see any purpose in this project.--Nxx 17:55, 16 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Support Without bothering with any argument on whether or not you are able to modify a "quote," i will point out that quotes that are idomatic, are idiomatic for a reason; that if even people with a perfect understanding of english have a hard time interpreting the quote, there is a reason for it. The reason just so happens to be, and very inherent to it, that there is no universal interpretation, there is no such thing as a "correct" interpretation. 01:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    'Comment: Perhaps there is no one "correct" interpretation of a quote; but there are people who feel baffled by expressions like "come what come may", and after reading an explanation or translation of them, then look again at the original quote and feel that they understand it. I think that's progress. If they are able to read and understand a translation of the quote into another language, they may prefer to use that either instead of reading the English quote or as an aid to understanding the English quote. But there are people who do not read and understand any other languages but who can understand a Simple English explanation and then read the quote. And there are people learning languages who prefer to read a simple explanation in the same language to help them understand the quote, rather than switching languages back and forth right when they're trying to learn a language. Just because some people prefer to use translations into another language doesn't mean we need to deprive those who like to use simple text in the same language, or deprive some Deaf people and others who do not read any other language but who can read Simple English. (Some Deaf people read English well and some cannot easily learn to read it -- their native language may be sign language which may have no written form.) --Coppertwig 04:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  25. Support; --Slade 17:44, 2 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  26. Support, even if explaination of the quotes would be useful, it would be on the wrong project anyway. There would be conflicts of interest with wikibooks or wikiversity. The SE Wikiquote is most-likely a duplication of effort or an effort that is done in the wrong wikispace. Lincher 19:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  27. Support, as there will be no reliable sources for simple-English translations. Wikimedia editors should never claim to explain anything without sources, however well-intentioned they may be. (Why should we believe any particular user? The whole Wikimedia system is based on the requirement that we don't create material, we report and assemble.) Years of practical wiki experience tell me that we just won't get anyone to provide the few sourced "translations" that we could potentially find. The only justification I could see for an SE Wikiquote would be to translate the policy pages, which could often use simplification on any Wikimedia project. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 01:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Comment: I disagree. Wikipedia is all about providing interpretations and rewordings of available material. Very little in Wikipedia is taken wor/d-for-word from sources; if it was, it would be plagiarism. Also, a great deal of Wikipedia is translated by Wikipedian editors. See for example wikipedia:en:Wikipedia:Translation into English/French, a busy project page which facilitates Wikipedian translators providing translated content for Wikipedia. There are many other such busy translation project pages. For example, I provided wikipedia:en:Hellenistic art as my own translation of wikipedia:fr:Art hellénistique which was itself not taken word-for-word from source material but was written by another Wikipedian editor based on bibliographic material. --Coppertwig 04:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Quotes are not the same thing as encyclopedia prose. You can (and must) reword text sourced by others for the latter. But Wikiquotes must include original text — that's their entire purpose. Interpreting these quotes can and often does devolve into original research. Even a casual examination of the atrocious state of proverb articles on en:Wikiquote will demonstrate this fact. I would suggest that the easier it is to "translate" a quote unambiguously into simple English, the less necessary it is to do so. Many of the pithiest quotes are deliberately complex, including metaphors, symbols, multiple meanings, and other elements that would require virtual essays to properly explain in simpler terms. The potential for unsourced "opinionating" — the bane of Wikimedia projects — is far too great. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 03:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    CommentThe idea of wikiquote simple english is to have a quote in english, and then take that quote and turn any non simple words into simple english.--Sir James Paul 16:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  28. Support Quotes in English are in English. Poppypetty 18:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Comment:Does this mean you think we should delete quotes of people such as Aristotle from the English wikiquote, and delete all the interwikis for the Shakespeare quotes? --Coppertwig 03:11, 10 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  29. Support Attempting to "simplify" quotations destroys the very notion of a "quotation," and introduces the simplifiers original research & POV. See for example [1]. Just doesn't make sense. --ZimZalaBim 18:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  30. Support ZimZalaBim, My sentiments exactly, I would go so far as to say this even leaves Wikimedia legally open for suit. You can not attribute as a quote to a living person, in english, the quote dumbed down. It is dictionary case of libel: he said X, just in a more complex form does not float for an encyclopedia, and bring in a new dynamic of subjectiveness. EvanCarroll 06:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    English Wikipedia would be far more open to suit, since it frequently attributes paraphrases to sources, and does not also give the original words, as Simple English Wikiquote does. --Coppertwig 22:49, 13 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  31. Support The whole point of a quote is to show the person's original words, not simplified ones. --paris456 9:24, 13 December 2006 (EST)
    Comment Note that this is my contribution, even though an IP address was logged. --paris456
    Comment: Perhaps there is some confusion around the terms "Simple English" and "simplification". A passage translated into Simple English is not actually any simpler than the original passage. It has been translated into a specialized language, that's all. Any meaning or nuance which can be represented in English can also be represented in Simple English. Simple English can compensate for a restricted vocabulary by rendering some passages longer in translation (just as I've noticed translations from English into French often tend to be a little longer than the original). Just as computers store much complex information using only the two bit-values "0" and "1", people can represent much complex information in Simple English. Are you against translation of quotes into other languages, too? I see the William Shakespeare English Wikiquote page has 23 interwikis, presumably all containing translations of Shakespeare's words. Do you think that should all be deleted? Do you think the quotes of Aristotle should be deleted from the English Wikiquote because they're not the original words? --Coppertwig 03:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    How can you make a quote simple? Thunderhead 21:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    A quote translated into Simple English is not necessarily simple. Information stored on a computer is stored with only two bit-values, 0 and 1, but can be quite complex. Similarly, information translated into a language with a limited vocabulary but with no restriction on the length of utterances or the arrangements of the words can also be quite complex. --Coppertwig 18:03, 1 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  32. Support per all above, and also because I have no idea why someone whose English is poor would be doing looking up quotes anyway. One of the most beautiful things about most quotes is the meaning contained in the choice of words. By translating it into another language means you lose much of that meaning - but by translating it into Simple English means you are losing that meaning without reason. Let people read it in the original. Dev920 14:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    You appear to be unaware of the existence of intelligent people who do not read English. --Coppertwig 18:03, 1 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  33. Support closure per all above plus if you need more understanding, use the wikiquote in your own language or use wikiversity. --Grcampbell 17:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  34. Support. The opinions are higher ower perfectly already have told.--Afinogenoff 04:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  35. Support - I see simple.wikipedia as an invaluable resource with enormous potential that deserves a place as a twin to english; having said that, I agree with the nominator - you can't put a quote into simple english - then it's not a quote. Granted, the evaluation, etc.. could be in simple - but that can be placed as a small section in the quotation - not on a whole other project. Anthonycfc [TC] 22:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
    Comment: You, along with most of the supporters of closure, are ignoring something: without translation, no English speaker alive would have any idea what (for example) Aristotle, Dante, or Jesus said (or is supposed to have said). Translating a quote is 100% legitimate, as I'm sure we can agree on. SEWQ simply is translating for a particular audience: an audience that does not speak/understand English fluently, but would like to understand quotes in English. Give us a chance! --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 12:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC) (login problems)Reply[reply]
    Good point, but you're missing something as well, Cromwellt. When one supplies reliable sources for translated quotes, as one is supposed to do, they are backed up by the professional reputations of the translators. This follows the Wikimedia philosophy of avoiding original research. It is possible to do this from standard to simple English, but much harder to find sources for this kind of simplification. (See the comments in vote #28 above.) If someone wanted to try it, I'd go looking in children's books, whose audience is known to have a lesser command of the language. (I'd expect the same of ESL books, whose audience has some of the same challenges with English, but I don't know how much of an audience there is for books likely to contain simplified quotes.) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 11:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Translation is a normal activity of Wikipedians, not considered Original Research. See wikipedia:Wikipedia:Translation_into_English. --Coppertwig 03:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Translating articles is a normal activity of Wikipedians. The material being translated is wiki-editor written, and need not be optimally or even accurately translated, because other editors can be counted on to use the cited sources (or add some of their own in English) to correct the translated material to match the sources. Wikiquote is an entirely different creature, because it claims to cite the original material. Translations of such should be professional done and sourced, for the same reason we require professionally edited information for sources on Wikipedia. Attempts by wiki editors to interpret original material are original research. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    There's nothing wrong with giving a translation when the original quoted text, in the original language, is also given. Policies may differ between projects, but here for example is a quote from an English Wikipedia guideline: "However, do give references in other languages where appropriate. If quoting from a different language source, an English translation should be given with the original-language quote beside it." (en:Wikipedia:Citing sources). --Coppertwig 01:34, 26 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    ...Besides, books such as the Annotated Shakespeare or the Annotated Alice can be used as sources of simple explanations of quotes. --Coppertwig 00:31, 27 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Using Annotated Shakespeare would be following my advice that translations be sourced, which provides at least an initial justification for Simple English WP. There remain two problems which I don't see as practically resolvable. First, as I quote myself from above, "Years of practical wiki experience tell me that we just won't get anyone to provide the few sourced 'translations' that we could potentially find." Second, wholesale quoting of translations from a copyrighted Annotated Shakespeare would be just as much a copyvio as if we did wholesale quoting of any other modern work. The very few instances of public-domain annotated works would make for a pitifully tiny SE WP. Thus my argument against the project. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 00:37, 9 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Jeff Q, I don't understand your argument, " Wikiquote is an entirely different creature, because it claims to cite the original material." Simple English Wikiquote does cite the original material: that is, it quotes the exact, unchanged, original words of the original quotes, just as English Wikiquote does; as well as providing translations into Simple English beside them, which English Wikiquote does not. This is just as is done in English Wikipedia when a non-English-language source is cited and the Wikipedian is encouraged to provide a translation as well as quoting the original words. --Coppertwig 16:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  36. Support - I don't think this will work. As one can see on simple.wikipedia, simplifying language usually leads to over-simplified content, which would be fatal for quotes. --Head 03:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  37. Support For simpler content to be understood by a not-too-good English user, footnote is enough. --Hello World! 14:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Support Since there is no such language and as such no sources in this language can exist.--Nxx (ru:Участник:Nxx) 18:45, 6 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Comment: User Nxx appears to have voted 3 times. --Coppertwig 00:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Comment: One vote should be counted per user, whether for or against. --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 23:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Support What do we get more... Simple Gothic Wikisource? --Ooswesthoesbes 06:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  38. Support no real language, I see no difference between Simple English and English, no Simple English quotes. --Markvondeegel 10:40, 3 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  39. With all my respect to the contributors of the SE WQ, quoting original English phrases in Simple English sounds like falsifying quotes to me. While the reason "it's easier to learn English" may be okay for an encylopedia, it's not okay here. Either I understand a quote in English (or another language) or I use a dictionary. It doesn't help me to learn English when I understand all the simple quotes but don't understand what a politician says in an interview. --32X 16:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  40. Support don't need a quote in a simplified language, nobody does. Vælke 16:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  41. Support. There are probably little (if any) Simple English quotes; one could simply ask for an explanation of a quote in a simpler manner on the English Wikiquote. Footnotes are fine with me also. Sr13 07:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  42. Strong support Any author who wants to dumb down content, it can be done within the mainstream en.wikipedia in the very same article. An encyclopedia trying to dumb down content for readers - oh irony. There was time once upon a time when encyclopedias were there to boost education and sport the cream of the crop. Now we have Simple English wikis, Special Olympics, Ebonics projects.... Elephas 20:40, 11 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  43. Support. "Simple English" isn't a language. Use the proper wikiquote. ST47 16:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Support No such language exist. This project does not meet the criteria for new projects and if it was proposed today it would be rejected. You do not help learn English just because it is nothing simplier for non-English speaking person to understand your "Simple English" than conventional English. Just the opposite: your "simplification" mostly consists of removing foreign and international words. While it can look more "smple" for you, it does not for a foreignrer. The most difficult part in learning English (and any other language) is learning English-specific words, not international ones. What would be more easy for you if you learned Russian: antropologia (anthropology) or nauka o lyudiakh (knowledge about people)?--Nxx 11:59, 18 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Comment: User Nxx appears to have voted 3 times. --Coppertwig 00:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Comment: It would be easier for me to understand "antropologia" than "nauka o lyudiakh", but learning "antropologia" might not help me understand any other Russian words, while learning "nauka o lyudiakh" might help me understand many other groups of words that use one of the same words. I read a book in simple German that used only a small number of different words. I liked it. I was able to understand it. It helped me learn German. Many other people also read simple books when learning a language. Some people like to begin with hard books. We can have both kinds of books so everybody is happy.
    Please remember that Simple English Wikiquote is not only for people who want to learn English. It is for everyone who can read Simple English. Many people can read Simple English but cannot read English. Some people can read Simple English and cannot read any other language. Some Deaf people can read "anthropology", but some Deaf people know the sign language sign for that word and can read groups of simple words like "the science of people" or "knowledge about different societies" but cannot read "anthropology" -- it's just a group of letters that mean nothing to them. --Coppertwig 16:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    One vote should be counted per user. --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 23:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Where did you see people who can read simple English and cannot conventional English. I see no difference. It is the same language for me (being a foreigner) and I see no deffewrence in difficulty. If one can read simple English, he did 99% of work of learning English and will of course understand and the conventional English.--Nxx 13:30, 26 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Here is one person who can read Basic English but cannot easily read English. To read Simple English, a person needs to learn to read about 1000 or 2000 words. To read English, a person may need to learn to read 10,000 or more words. For some people, learning to read Simple English is much easier than learning to read English. I've seen children who can read a small number of different words, and for them it is too hard to read normal English. I remember when I was like that. There are too many new words to learn to read, and it is too hard, even if they already know how to understand those words when they hear them. There are books like Dr. Seuss' books to help these people. Maybe after a few days, months or years they can read hard English books. There are many people like that. (Maybe not everyone who learns to read is like that for a while.) There are also adults who read Simple English and don't read English; some will learn to read English and some maybe never will. Remember that Simple English Wikiquote is not only for those people but also for translators, for people who don't understand some older English words, for people who are not sure whether they understand some quotes, and for anyone else who can read Simple English and wants to use it. --Coppertwig 14:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  44. Strong support. No sense in this Wikipedia. --Pauk 04:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    We're not discussing Wikipedia. EVula // talk // // 18:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  45. Support.--Ziko-en 18:10, 25 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  46. Support - Meursault2004 22:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  47. Support Wikipedia in Simple English is a bad idea, but Wikiquote in Simple English makes absolutely no sense at all. Angr 06:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  48. Support. en:User:Lethe 06:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  49. Strong support If the quote is put into simple English, it would have to be "Wikiparaphrase", not "Wikiquote". Hmwith 17:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Comment: No, but maybe "Wikiquoteandparaphrase" or "Wikiquoteandparaphraseandabitofabiographyandmaybeapicture". --Coppertwig 15:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  50. It isn't a quote when you dumb down the language. The same as right above. en:User:Reywas92
    Comment: Simple English is not "dumbed down". Ideas said in Simple English can be as hard and as interesting as ideas said in English. Any idea that can be translated to other languages can also be said in Simple English. A larger number of simple words can say the same things as a smaller number of hard words. Simple English Wikiquote has the original (same) words of the people who said the quotes, and also translations into Simple English. The original words are certainly quotes. --Coppertwig 15:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Indeed. "My gastrointestinal tract is devoid of nutrient-laden materials" is the same as "I'm hungry", but in a much more complicated manner. EVula // talk // // 17:18, 3 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The longer one has many little ideas in it that are not in the shorter one. All those little ideas can also be explained in Simple English. Sometimes, after someone, who did not understand, reads an explanation and then reads the original words again, they enjoy it and sometimes even laugh. --Coppertwig 17:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  51. Support. --Leoman3000 20:43, 9 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  52. Support per nom --GayCowboy 08:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Comment: I don't understand your vote. Would you please explain it? The nom says "Quotes in English are quotes in English". That is simply something that is always true. Please explain how you see that as a reason to close this project. --Coppertwig 22:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  53. Support. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson 09:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  54. Support No usefulness. Simple English Wikipedia and Wikibooks are enough for ESL novices.--RekishiEJ 06:32, 30 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  55. Support. --Felisopus Talk to me 12:44, 19 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  56. Support Completely bad idea. Waste of Wikipedia's resources. Doubling of information, possible copyright violation and perversion of meaning. Who gave himself power to decide what is simplier for other people? If it is simplier for you, it can be more complex for another person.--Certh 16:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Comment. We know that using words that are used frequently makes it much more probable that a person will understand them. It never makes it certain that everyone will understand. --Coppertwig 19:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  57. Support --Alastor Moody (talk) 01:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  58. Support If the language of quotes is changed, then it is not quotes anymore. Yann 12:01, 12 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Comment/Question: Do you think the Shakespeare quotes should be deleted from Italian Wikiquote, and that the quotes of Aristotle should be deleted from English Wikiquote? --Coppertwig 19:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  59. Strong support per above. --SpeedKing 21:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  60. Strong support Quotes should be consistent and constant what's in English stays in English. It should not be simplified. And this vote is also due to the fact that I oppose Simple English projects. It is like having a separate project for British and American English. -- Felipe Aira 12:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  61. Conditional support provided that all content is merged into the English Wikiquote via the transwiki process or otherwise. English is English is English. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 14:34, 10 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  62. Strong support. If people are not native speakers of English, why don't they just contribute to the project in their native language? Please merge all Simple English projects (except the Wikipedia which I think is useful) with the normal English ones since they don't make any sense. --Thogo (talk) 08:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  63. Support - The last mainspace edit done by Archer7 and Cromwellt was in November 2006 and August 2007 respectively. It is so dead that there is only an average of 7 edits per day. Chenzw 09:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  64. support --.snoopy. 07:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  65. Support Quotes are just quotes. Translating the quotes into a hundred languages are just a waste of time. Now you're opening another Wiki of quotes that is going to translate English into English again, only simpler? In the first place, Wikiquote itself is already unpopular, how many people need to have quotes? And a person who studies quotes should understand English a lot, no need to be simple? Would a child do a project looking for quotes? The whole idea of the different Wikiquotes in different languages is already quite useless, not to mention Wikisource. 10:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oppose closing SE WQ[edit]

  1. Oppose. 2 editors (including me) are now working to turn this project around, give us a chance on this one. Archer7 12:34, 28 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. Oppose. This project is still just starting, but it is unfair to judge a project before you give it a chance. The idea of this project is not to paraphrase quotes. The idea is to take the quotes (just as they are) and explain them, using simple English so that users who have limited vocabularies can understand them. This project is valid, and it is only the unwarranted and inexplicable malice of one admin on SEWikipedia towards all other Simple English projects that has brought this nomination, in spite of the fact that the rest of the Simple English community including SEWikipedia accepts these projects as valid and valuable, serving the same audience as SEWikipedia itself. This project, though only beginning, has a reason to exist and some activity. It deserves to exist. --Cromwellt|talk|contris 10:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3. To be honest, I don't understand what this project is going to do. But if people are working on it, then give them a chance. Gerard Foley 10:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Look, this project probably won't take very long to get it up to a reasonable standard. If people don't like it then, lock it. Archer7 20:45, 30 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  4. Support What is this for, anyway? The randompage function gave me "Current events" and some list of people whose quotes are on wikiquote. And almost all the pages just link back to the main page. What a horrible WASTE of...whatever it is wikis are really made of ;). --M1ss1ontomars2k4 22:15, 26 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Oppose per Archer7. Perhaps we can have modern English "translations" of famous old quotes. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 04:23, 31 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  5. Oppose, as per Archer7. -- Zanimum 19:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  6. Oppose. In addition to the above, it has multiple editors with multiple edits within the past month; EN Wikiquote similarly languished with minimal activity with a long lagtime after EN Wikipedia started getting heavy activity--Simple English Wikiquote should be allowed the same measure of 'catch up' time since the recent dramatic increase in activity at the Simple 'pedia. Plain, modern English 'translations' of quotes seems very desirable. Freshstart 02:29, 4 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  7. Oppose Though "the modern English" isn't totally eqaul to SE, translations of both famous old English quotes and other languages still make a sense (ENWQ has a lots of translation, like Goethe, Descartes, Confucius ...). Now there are people who want to challange to revive it, and it will be fine to give them a chance for a while. --Aphaia 08:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Oppose I've sent friends and people who are not good at the English language to the SE wiki (although not wikiquote yet), they're decent resources and should remain. Give them a chance, it could be another decent place for people who require simple English -- 12:26, 9 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Comment: Please log in or create an account before voting, since votes from IP addresses are not generally counted. --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 19:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Oppose I would rather see all Basic English materials left on Wikipedia. Its a lot more useful. Those that don't know English well, the Deaf [like me], and those whose brains cannot handle the complexities of normal English and the already too-huge vocabulary all need Basic English resources. I'm THRILLED Wikipedia offers these things, including Basic English Wikibooks. I have a hard time understanding textbooks. I used to be good at normal English, but that all changed as I slowly became deaf. With ASL quickly becoming my new native language, I can't keep up with the complex English and require the Basic English. If I have to, I'll get on the Basic English editing staff and help out, just to keep this resource open.
    Comment: Please log in before voting. Anonymous votes are not usually considered in a wiki context. --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 16:16, 28 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  8. Oppose --Kernigh 04:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  9. Oppose Maksim 15:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  10. Oppose per Cromwellt & Archer7. — Randy Johnston (talkcontribs) 00:24, 24 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  11. Oppose Ek7 20:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Oppose Simple Wikiquote should not be used to shorten or simplify complex quotes. It is meant as a place to place original quotes that happen to be originally said in simple language. It should definitely not be shut down. It's not hurting anyone.
    Comment: While I'm glad you agree that we deserve to exist, I must disagree with your opinion of SE WQ's purpose. While there are a very small number of quotes that might naturally fit at SE WQ, those quotes would also fit perfectly at E WQ, thereby negating any usefulness in that way. The vast majority of quotes are much too complex for people with a limited knowledge of English to understand. These people need explanation and/or "translation" of these quotes, using a restricted vocabulary of words they already know or can easily learn (using resources like SE Wiktionary). That is what SE Wikiquote is for. Oh, and don't forget to log in before voting, since anonymous votes are not usually counted in a wiki context. --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 16:16, 28 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  12. Oppose per the other bazillion good reasons provided by opposers. Alkivar 09:18, 14 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  13. Oppose, per reasons stated above.-- Tdxiang 05:14, 23 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  14. Oppose, I oppose closing Simple English Wikiquote. I think many of the people who want to close it do not understand the purpose of Simple English Wikiquote. The purpose of Simple English Wikiquote is to provide quotes in real English, along with explanations in Simple English of the quotes. See for example wikiquote:simple:Aristotle. I think this is useful for many people. It is useful for children and young adults and even some adults who speak English but do not understand the quotes in English. The quotes may be things they hear sometimes but do not understand because they're in older English, for example quotes from Shakespeare. Or they may think they understand but are not sure or have it wrong. A Simple English explanation can help. Another group who can benefit is some Deaf people or some other people who may not be able to read any language well, but some of them may be able to read Simple English. They may want to understand a quote, and explanations or translations in another language won't help because they don't read any other language, but they may be able to read Simple English. Another group who can benefit is people learning English. Many people learn a language better if they do not use their own language every few seconds while trying to learn another language. Looking up translations of words into their own language in a dictionary gets them thinking in their own language and distracts from learning the other language. But reading a quote in real English with help from a Simple English explanation, instead of an interlanguage dictionary, can help them learn real English without the distraction of their own language getting in the way. I have recently started contributing to Simple English Wikipedia and Simple English Wiktionary and I've just discovered Simple English Wikiquote. It looks like a good thing that I may contribute to. I may also read it -- I'm not always sure I understand all those quotes either. --Coppertwig 23:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  15. Oppose, I see no case for closure based on scarcity of resources. Closure seems about reducing diversity. If project is growing and not supporting terrorism then let it be. Opponents, however, should not be forced to paricipate. SmithBlue 17:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  16. ""Oppose""--Sir James Paul 22:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  17. Oppose. If all the articles were like the Shakespeare quotes article, this would be a great resource for the intended audience. User:BlankVerse 11:20, 10 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  18. Oppose - I don't see the reason to close an active active project. I think the nomination was made in with a misunderstanding of the purpose. J.smith 00:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  19. Oppose per, inter al., J.smith and SmithBlue (in whose principal submission, if not whose particular locutions [I don't think closure is essayed here to reduce diversity], I concur). Jahiegel 05:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  20. Oppose It certainly has potential. --Majorly 22:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  21. Opposee after a second look, you can see that it is a good idea and is just like SE WP. It gives the quotes and then simplifies them for other users. Cbrown1023 22:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  22. Oppose, if anything it's an enhanced version of the regular en.wikiquote, especially in the case of the Shakespeare example. -- Steel en:Steel 12:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  23. OpposeQuotes can be simplified by omitting words, using ellipses to show the omissions, and brackets can explain difficult words. For example, I would suppose that Abraham Lincoln would understand if he saw in Simple English Wikiquote the following: "Four score and seven years ago [87 years ago], our fathers...[created]...a new nation..." With such simplification goes the responsibility to direct the reader to the original source of the quote. Now, I must state that I have recently created a page for Friedrich Kellner on Simple English Wikiquote, which is in eight other Wikiquote languages. So I probably am not as objective about this as the rest of you. Nevertheless, as the holder of the copyright for the Friedrich Kellner diary, I would have no arguments with anyone simplifying my grandfather's words, because my grandfather wanted to reach as many people as possible. Scott (User:Rskellner)-- 20:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC) [NOTE]: I have now registered on Meta. I'm sorry I didn't do that before I voted here. Scott --Rskellner 20:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  24. OpposeI belive that people who use the Simple English Wikis... should have the fair deal! What about the people who can only use the Simple English Wikis? They should not be left out! Would you like it if this happened to you? Wikinerd2000 01:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  25. Oppose Making knowledge accessable is not going to destroy it. --Haikon 09:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  26. Oppose Why on earth would you close an active project?
    1. At a glance, it looks like there are now about 100 or so pages in Mainspace excluding redirects, etc.
    2. Quotes are not simplified -- they're shown without alteration, then explained in Simple English.
    Seems like a no-brainer to keep this -- why are we even discussing deletion? --A. B. (talk) 03:31, 20 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  27. Oppose --V111P 19:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  28. Oppose On behalf of all those people out there who either speak English as their mother tongue and still have difficulty understanding everything they read and also on behalf of all those learners out there who are desperately trying to improve their knowledge of English and are unable to understand quotes that are sometimes just incomprehensible for reasons of poetic license, complicated old fashioned grammar or spelling or their (as yet) insufficient English , I vehemently oppose shutting this site down. After all, hasn´t the bible been continuously simplified in all languages over the centuries, in order to enable every inhabitant of our planet to be able to read and understand it? Maureencc, 6 p.m., Friday, 8th June 2007
    Comment: The above is a registered user (check the history). --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 00:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Oppose We can still expand. -- 20:02, 2 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Comment: Please sign in before voting. --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 00:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  29. Oppose The project seems in a healthy state. Can see how it aids translators works quite excellently, espescially the bits where difficult words meanings are explained, that is always the problem with translators who are only sufficiently proficient rather than brilliant, can save them lots of work dashing over to the wiktionary, paper dictionary or what not. Lastly, as there are people who do read at a lower level of proficiency, seems a shame to rob them of the potential use of a resource that this might burgeon into. Here we should have patience; and those who find us in time, will thank us. I wouldn't oppose creating a wikiquote entirely in cartoon, pictogram form either, for those who cannot read any language at all. That might be a great resource for people in developing parts of the world where literacy is still a battle in progress. -- Cimon Avaro 19:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  30. Oppose Themcman1 15:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  31. Oppose per Cromwellt - SEWq is trying to explain quotes in Simple English, not give simple english quotes. 21:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC) (Ionas68224 at simple.wikipedia)Reply[reply]
  32. Oppose Simple English is not the same language as English. Anyone who says so has not studied theoretical Computer Science (which deals a lot with language structure) and Linguistics. English has an effectively infinite vocabulary, whereas Simple English has a finite vocabulary. Any restrictions in grammar would also make it a different language. The reason it doesn't appear to be one is that its words (one level of symbols) and grammar are a subset of English, so anyone reading it will understand what it means. Writing in it is a different matter. The combination of rules and symbols of English will lead to sentences that are not part of Simple English. Technically speaking you can translate something written in English into Simple English. And, by the way, a translation is a kind of explanation. It just tries to limit itself to a similar length. Trying to say that translations of foreign language quotes at the English Wikiquote aren't explanations of a sort is absurd. And, at least from the pages at the Simple English Wikiquote I went to, they do not do more than translate the quote into Simple English. So, they do get the explanatory value the SEWQ editors are (rightly) describing as positive, while not violating the general mission of Wikiquotes (as one editor claimed in the comments below). And, as someone who has studied numerous foreign languages, it is easy to see how having a quote in a simplified version of the language would be helpful in addition to having it in their native language. Many people here have pointed out other uses of SE quotes, even for native speakers. I don't see how this project can do any harm and there is an active community working on it. Baring serious resource issues, what reason could there ever be to delete the project? —Tox 15:25, 4 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Any user of natural language has his onwn vocabulary, but this does not mean he speaks another language. Simple English is a subset of English.--Nxx 13:33, 26 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  33. Oppose Per cromwellt. ~ Wikihermit 14:48, 12 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  34. Oppose - per Cromwellt. --Isis4563 13:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  35. Oppose. I've never really seen the point of treating Simple English as a separate language; however, it clearly is filling some sort of niche, judging from the activity of some of the projects in it, particularly its Wikipedia. So whilst Simple English seems to be fulfilling a purpose, I support its retention, whether as a Wikiquote, Wikibooks, a Wikipedia or any other project. Keeping a minority-interest project has a negligible cost, and where in doubt we should err in favour of retention. — Ras52 22:23, 22 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Comment: I agree with you, Ras, that it is not a separate language: it is a subset of English which is limited so that people who do not know English well can read it and/or use it (whether they use it to learn English is up to them). However, I feel that it is good that this subset of English has its own set of projects (which I think should include SE Wikinews, SE Wikisource, and SE Wikiversity, which do not currently exist) because it serves an audience that English projects do not serve. Whether other languages should have simple projects is open for debate--I like the idea, personally, though there seems to be some strong opposition to starting any others. In any case, I'm glad that you feel that these are worth keeping.  :) --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 00:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  36. There is a perfectly valid rationale for Simple English compared to regular English. As has been noted, we already translate quotes into other languages; this isn't terribly dissimilar to that process. This wiki's existence is justified. EVula // talk // 17:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  37. Oppose I think this project fulfills a useful purpose of explaining quotes. Captain panda 23:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  38. Oppose Explaining quotes in simple english is worth a project, especially when tens of others don't have a single useful page and should be closed first. This simple wikiquote has no fewer reason to be than the simple wikipedia. chtit_draco talk page 07:54, 8 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  39. Oppose. It seems that the nomination and many of the support votes are on false pretenses; quotes in regular English can be explained in Simple English (or, as EVula pointed out, they can be simplified as a "translation".) When is this gonna close? Grandmasterka 08:12, 21 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  40. Oppose - 21:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  41. Oppose This wikiquote serves an important purpose for native speakers of other languages. Also if you close this you might as well close the Simple English Wikipedia also. Tarret 22:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  42. Oppose - per Archer7. -- 12:57, 4 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  43. Oppose Sometimes I don't understand difficult English quotes too, it should be kept. --OosWesThoesBes 19:27, 8 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  44. Oppose - as per EVula and Grandmasterka..--Cometstyles 06:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  45. Oppose. EVula and others make good points, and this discussion appears to have resulted in more interest in the project. I see no compelling reason to close. JoshuaZ 14:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC) - Follow up, note that a number of users such as Coppertwig have added to the project in the last few days and seem to be doing good work. See . JoshuaZ 17:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  46. Oppose. Seems like it is coming along nicely. Abeg92 18:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  47. Oppose There is an active community, quotes can be simplified for non native english speakers to understand. --Z 16:58, 3 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  48. Oppose It's working, it's useful, and there is a community that takes care of it. --Jorunn 19:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  49. Oppose I'm communitu there and won't let this happen. Project is active and has pages. Simplified quotes CAN help. Uswibèta 15:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  50. Oppose Seems useful. Rich Farmbrough 15:40 13 November 2007 (GMT).
  51. Keep, or oppose if you prefer. Mostly harmless. It surprises me the number of people who want to close this wiki, not because they believe it to be harmful, but because they don't believe that it possible. Have they not looked at it? To quote Douglas Adams, "I don't believe it. Prove it to me and I l believe it." or in Simple: "I do not believe what you say. Proof will not change that." Regards, BenAveling 07:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    And you suppose the second phrase is simplier? I think the opposite. Anyway it consists just the same words, the first fully explains the meaning while the letter still keeps the question open (what will not change the proof? the fact or that he will not believe it?...) for me as a foreighner the first sentence is more clear because it does not allow misunderstanding.--Nxx 03:56, 23 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Comment: Thank you for the comment. I changed Douglas Adams. If you have more things to say about the Simple English translations/explanations, a better place is Simple talk or the talk page for the quote page, or you can change them yourself. --Coppertwig 17:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    What is simplier is comletely subjective. You cannot determine what is more simple. For native but stupid English speaker it will be one, for child - another variant, for French speaker - third, for Chinese - fourth. There is no universal "simple English".--Nxx 05:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  52. per archer7 --.snoopy. AKA dario vet · (talk) 17:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  53. Oppose. The project seems to have a well defined goal setting it apart from regular english wikiquote. --Dschwen 13:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  54. Oppose per Jorunn. --Agüeybaná (hábleme) 14:50, 10 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  55. Keep There are many people who don't understand the quote well and there should be Simple English Wikiquote to help that - otherwise, this will be hard for other people. --Passawuth 01:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  56. Oppose Personally I'm not entirely convinced about the usefulness of a fairly subjective project, but it does have potential for growth with active participants; and maybe it does help those with poorer English skills. EJF 17:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments SE WQ[edit]

  • I don't support the premise "quotes cannot be simplified". If they can be translated into other languages (eg, "Franchement très chère, je m'en fous."), then they can be translated into Simple English ("Honestly, my dear, I don't care." to give a bad example). There are plenty of quotations from the 19th century intellectuals (or even earlier) that would be much more understandable simplified! But in case that is supposedly not the aim of this project anyway...Stevage 11:06, 4 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I strongly agree with you, Stevage. We have actually somewhat revised the purpose of SE Wikiquote based on your comment and others. Thanks! --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 16:19, 28 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • As I said in my support of the closure comment, this project is in conflict of interest with what WQ normally stands for (a repository of quotes and translations of quotes; not an explanatory reference desk for quotes). Secondly, it is also in conflict of interest with WBooks and Wversity for it serves the purpose of teaching (see Wikiversity for that) and the purpose of explaining/building material (see Wikibooks for that). This shouldn't be a matter of voting, it should instead be seen as using the right project for what they are, and as such, the SEWikiquote shouldn't take form as there are no actual simplified quotes in the english language. Lincher 20:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • There are translations of quotes into Simple English. What's wrong with having a Wikiquote for those? There are also no doubt some notable English quotes which happen to also be Simple English. I think you're getting the definition of "conflict of interest" mixed up with something else. Wikibooks and Wikiversity may not be set up to easily have interwikis from other Wikiquote projects. They are not the same thing. --Coppertwig 04:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I see that a page such as en:wikiquote:William Shakespeare has interwikis to many languages, with translations of the quotes into Italian, Spanish etc. Why shouldn't there also be translations into Simple English so that people such as some Deaf people who can read Simple English but not English or any other language can have the opportunity to read and enjoy these quotes? --Coppertwig 04:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I was thinking the other day about the reasons that SEWQ is needed, and there were two particular examples that I came up with. We need SEWQ for the same reason that I have a dual-language version of Chaucer's Canterbury Tales, and for the same reason that my "Annotated Shakespeare" is the Shakespeare reference that I usually turn to for information on Shakespeare. BlankVerse 15:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I did some spot checking of a few quote pages and I didn't see any examples of the original and the simple english version, the way the main page described. Could someone give a link to one? That would help me make up my mind but I am leaning toward opposing closure. However I do note, looking at the recent changes that there does not seem to be a lot of activity. ++Lar: t/c 22:26, 5 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I've just collected on the Main Page, in the first category under "Selected Pages", links to a number of pages which have English and Simple English, as the plan is for almost all pages to eventually have. Some of these pages are in progress. --Coppertwig 23:23, 11 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Note that after I changed the Main Page like that, there have been twice as many (6) votes opposed to closing the project as votes (3) supporting closing the project. --Coppertwig 13:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Quotes can be simplified, but to respect the authors, it is essential to provide any sources like linking to English Wikiquote. I refrain from registering a username there while it may be closed.--Jusjih 14:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Can anybody cite stats for number of people worldwide using SE, and number of users of SE wiki? --Piotrus 12:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
--A. B. (talk) 13:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I could not find page view stats. We do know that, size-wize, simple.wikipedia currently ranks 49th out of the 209 Wikipedias with >100 articles. Likewise simple.wikiquote currently ranks 44th out of the 87 Wikiquotes we have (just ahead of Danish). --A. B. (talk) 13:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Interesting Alexa stats that don't directly answer your question: the entire domain has a high Alexa ranking of 3,797. The 22 largest Wikiquotes get 97% of all pageviews tracked by Alexa. Nevertheless, even if simple.wikipedia gets 0.1% of all page views, I'm guessing it would still have a respectable Alexa rank in the 100,000s. (0.1% is probably reasonable since simple.wikiquote has 0.13% of all articles). if we want to delete this based on size, we've got dozens or 100s of other projects to work through first that are smaller. --A. B. (talk) 14:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
One more stat: the 22 largest Wikiquotes contain 92% of our articles implying they get more than their share (97%) of page views; that may be offset by any Alexa bias toward English/German/French/etc.-speaking, tech-savvy users that use the Alexa Toolbar.--A. B. (talk) 14:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Here are two articles on the target audiences and purpose of the Simple English Wikipedia; many of the same comments apply here to simple.wikiquote:
Here's the opening statement from the Main Page:
  • "We have quotes in English, and the same quotes in Simple English to help readers understand them."
I just wish someone would start something in Simple French to help me work on my French!
--A. B. (talk) 14:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oui, moi aussi. C'est une bonne idée! Abeg92 18:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Une idee semblable c'est "Vikidia -- L'encyclopédie des enfants" (French wiki encyclopedia for children.) --Coppertwig 18:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I just found that there is also a Dutch (Nederlands) and a German (Deutsch) wiki for kids. I can have fun reading them, and they will help me learn the languages! See links near the bottom of Wikikids, under "current wikis for kids". --Coppertwig 18:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The aborted closure of this project by a non-admin and the subsequent controversy that provoked raised issues we need to address:

--A. B. (talk) 16:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Some time, if you are not the people that speak English as the second language you don't know how it's feel. It's because you're native. Please think about people finding information. Please think about native that has poor English ! --Passawuth 14:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]